[Commons-research] Fwd: Reviews

philipp schmidt phi.schmidt at gmail.com
Fri Feb 29 16:00:32 EST 2008

I had asked Eve for her thoughts on our conversation about peer review (i
admit, i was hoping she'd chime in on the side of "open").
Her suggestion to have a session to discuss peer review is excellent. We
could look at the evidence for the advantages and problems of traditional
peer review, and how open approaches could complement or replace it.


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Eve Gray <eve.gray at googlemail.com>
Date: Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 6:44 PM
Subject: Re: [Commons-research] Reviews
To: philipp schmidt <phi.schmidt at gmail.com>

Dear Philipp
I am surprised to find that I am not on this list as I had asked to be
included. I am therefore  coming into this discussion rather late.

Although I understand the motivation for having peer reviewed papers so that
academics can claim subsidy and get brownie points for their papers, I would
remain unhappy about iCommons accepting too uncritically this mode of
traditional conferencing. This is a system that has long been used to
marginalise scholars from the developing world. I have been a university
press publisher and am only too familiar with the pitfalls of closed review.
Paul Zeleza has written  cogently of how this has been used to exclude
African scholars even from African Studies publication.

So I would concur that a research thread at iCommons should look at new
rather than old models of peer review - of open review and the more
democratic peer review processes being used by PLOSOne for example. In fact
a discussion  on peer  review and conference modes would probably be good.

I am also unhappy at the idea of this being a traditional panel discussion
format. Sigh! Please can't we have a livelier discussion format?I can read a
paper but it is only at  the Summit that one gets a chance to talk and
engage with people.

You are welcome to pass on my comments - and perhaps you can tell me how one
gets onto this list (not that I have time).

A last thought - as I mentioned in another context in the last few days, I
think that a research track like this one should unhook itself from an
exclusive focus on licences and start looking too at the power dynamics of
global communications and what the Commons can contribute there.



On 26/02/2008, philipp schmidt <phi.schmidt at gmail.com> wrote:
> This is an interesting discussion about how the research track at the
> iSummit runs its peer review process. I am promoting "as open as possible",
> some are in favour of the traditional model of closed peer review with not
> possibility for others to comment, and then there are a lot of ideas in the
> middle. I feel quite strongly that the iSummit should be the place to
> experiment with open models ...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/commons-research/attachments/20080229/1369cc8a/attachment.html 

More information about the Commons-research mailing list